Global Warming

Floor Speech

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I fear one of the major issues that not only faces our country but faces our planet is not getting the kind of serious debate and discussion it needs in the Senate; that is, the planetary crisis of global warming, what its impact is having now in our country and in other countries throughout the world and how, in fact, we can address this enormous crisis.

I understand politically some of my colleagues do not believe global warming is real and they do not think there is much our country should or can do to address this crisis. I understand that. But with all due respect, I strongly disagree with that position and believe, in terms of the future of our planet, the lives of our kids and our grandchildren, that is a very wrongheaded position and could lead to enormous problems for our country and for the rest of the world.

But the truth is, the real debate about global warming is not whether other Members of the Senate disagree with me or Senator Udall, the issue is what the scientific community, the people who have studied this issue for years, in fact, believes. As I think the Presiding Officer understands, the overwhelming consensus in our country and around the world from the scientific community is, A, global warming is real, and, B, to a very significant degree global warming is manmade.

That is not just my position, not just what I say or what other Members of the Senate say. Far more important, it is what leading scientists all over the world are saying.

The National Academy of Sciences in this country, joined by academies of science in the United Kingdom, Italy, Mexico, Canada, France, Japan, Russia, Germany, China, India, Brazil, and South Africa, has said--this is their statement, the National Academy of Sciences-- ``..... climate change is happening even faster than previously estimated'' and the ``need for urgent action to address climate change is now indisputable.''

It is fine for radio talk show hosts to have their view. Frankly, I think it is more significant that the scientific community from all over the world is in agreement. Let me repeat what they say: `` ..... climate change is happening even faster than previously estimated'' and the ``need for urgent action to address climate change is now indisputable.''

Mr. President, 18 scientific societies, including the American Geophysical Union and the American Association for the Advancement of Science, said:

Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver.

That is not I; that is 18 scientific societies, including the American Geophysical Union and the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

They continue:

These conclusions are based on multiple independent lines of evidence, and contrary assertions are inconsistent with an objective assessment of the vast body of peer-reviewed science.

But it is not only the scientific community. It is agencies of the U.S. Government that have to deal or worry about the impact of global warming.

The Department of Defense says:

Climate change is an accelerant of instability.

What they worry about is, as the planet warms, as floods occur, as drought occurs, we are going to see migrations of people, we are going to see countries fighting over limited natural resources, whether it is farmland or whether it is water. From the Department of Defense perspective, they say, and I repeat:

Climate change is an accelerant of instability.

That is the U.S. Department of Defense--not Bernie Sanders.

The CIA--our intelligence agency--says: `` ..... climate change could have significant geopolitical impacts around the world, contributing to poverty, environmental degradation, and the further weakening of fragile governments,'' as well as ``food and water scarcity.''

That is not a Senator on the floor. That is the Central Intelligence Agency, the business of which is to gather and assess threats to our country.

Interestingly enough, there are segments of the business community that are also speaking out on climate change and global warming for their own reasons.

The insurance industry, in a report from the National Association of Insurance Commissioners, found there is ``broad consensus among insurers that climate change will have an effect on extreme weather events.''

What we are seeing is that scientists all over the world, academic institutions all over the world, governmental agencies right here in the United States of America--including the Department of Defense and the CIA--and the insurance industry saying global warming is real, it is a real threat to our planet, and it is imperative we address it.

I have more to say on this issue, and some of us will be on the floor for an hour, but I want to give the floor over to Senator Tom Udall from New Mexico, who has certainly been a leading advocate in the fight for policies that will reverse global warming and move us in another direction.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SANDERS. I say to my friend, he is absolutely right. The issue we are talking about now is not only trying to reverse global warming and save the planet, what we are talking about is creating, over a period of years, millions of good-paying jobs.

We may not know it from some media reports, but the fact is the solar industry in this country is exploding. All over this country, we are seeing more and more installations of solar panels, we are seeing the production of solar. One of the issues I think Senator Udall is referring to is whether the United States of America will be a leader in sustainable energy or are we going to give that whole enormous economic area over to China.

I know the Senator and I are in agreement that we believe American workers can manufacture those panels. We think American workers can install those panels.

We also understand it is not just solar, it is wind; that these industries need some of the help that the fossil fuel industry has been receiving for years. I think we will also be talking about the whole issue of energy efficiency and weatherization, which in my State is enormously important. We are creating jobs, saving consumers money, as we retrofit their homes and cut back on their use of fuel.

So, yes, I say to the Senator, we are talking about a major jobs issue.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SANDERS. Absolutely. It is incomprehensible. Here we have technologies that are incredibly successful. They are producing substantial amounts of energy, without pollution, without greenhouse gases. They are creating jobs. Of course, we should continue these tax credits, these extenders to make sure these industries can flourish.

Some people may think when Senator Udall and I talk about wind and solar, we are talking about some kind of fringe idea. Let's be clear; in the State of Texas today they are producing 10,000 megawatts of electricity through wind. That is the equivalent of 10 average-sized nuclear powerplants. That is not insignificant. In Iowa, as I understand it, about 20 percent of the electricity in that State is generated from wind.

So we are in the beginning, in the first stages of a real revolution to transform our energy system to clean, safe energy which, in the process, can create, over a period of years, millions of good-paying jobs.

So I would certainly agree with the Senator from New Mexico.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SANDERS. Well, the Senator is absolutely right. Everybody understands that if you are in business, if you are in wind or in solar, you have to be planning for the future. And if you do not believe or you are uncertain about whether these tax credits are going to be available, what is going to happen is you are not going to go forward. We know there are examples right now of major projects that have already been canceled.

Furthermore, we are not talking--given the context of U.S. Government expenditures--about a huge amount of money, but it is money that I think is very well spent, protects our environment, and creates jobs.

I see the Senator from Rhode Island has joined us. Senator Whitehouse has surely been one of the strongest advocates for our environment and the need to address global warming.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SANDERS. If I could ask Senator Whitehouse and Senator Udall a simple question--and Senator Whitehouse raised this issue--all over the world, there really is no debate within the scientific community about the reality of global warming, the basic causes of global warming, the severity of global warming. Yet suddenly here in this Congress it becomes a major political issue. We fund the National Institutes of Health. We fund scientific organizations. They do research on cancer. They do research on heart disease. They do all kinds of research. I don't see great political debate about what this says. And suddenly, when you have almost unanimity within the scientific community, this becomes this great dividing political issue. How did it happen that where there is so much unanimity among the scientific community in this country and around the world, this has become such a hot-potato political issue?

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SANDERS. If I could just point out, picking up on Senator Udall's point, in recent years we have seen, as everybody in America knows--not only are we paying outrageously high prices at the pump, but we are seeing oil companies making huge profits. My recollection is that in the last 10 years the oil companies have made about $1 trillion in profits. ExxonMobil has made more money than any corporation in history. Yet, over the last 10 years, there have been examples, there have been cases in a given year where a major oil company--ExxonMobil being one--made huge profits, billions in profits, and ended up paying zero in Federal income taxes and, in fact, got a rebate. So you have this absurd situation where hugely profitable oil companies are paying nothing in taxes, and some of us think that does not make any sense at all. We think they should pay their fair share and that to a significant degree that money should go into sustainable energy so that we can break our addiction to oil.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SANDERS. I thank the Senator for the good work he is doing. What I would like to do is just pick up on a point Senator Whitehouse just raised; that is, the record of history shows us that we cannot take the climate for granted. Our relatively limited experience of advancement over the last 10,000 years, during the time of stable climate on a planet that is billions of years old, has distorted our view of the Earth's complex climate system.

A recent National Academy of Sciences report stated:

..... it seems clear that the Earth's future will be unlike the climate that ecosystems and human societies have been accustomed to during the last 10,000 years. .....

That is the point Senator Whitehouse just made, and that is according to the National Academy of Sciences.

The reason is that human activities--primarily the burning of fossil fuels--are increasing greenhouse gas emissions and causing global warming. According to the U.S. Global Change Research Program, ``global warming is unequivocal and primarily human induced.''

We have altered the climate that has sustained humanity for the last 10,000 years. We are now at 392 parts per million of carbon dioxide, up from 280 parts per million in the 18th century. What an extraordinary increase in carbon dioxide in that short period of time. And greenhouse gas levels are rising steadily. In fact, carbon dioxide levels are increasing faster than at any time on record, according to our EPA.

Maybe that 392 parts per million seems like an abstract number, so let me put it into context. According to UCLA researchers, the last time carbon dioxide levels were consistently this high--the last time--was 15 million years ago--15 million years ago. The Earth, at that time, was warmer by 5 to 10 degrees Fahrenheit than it is today. At that level of warmth, there is no permanent sea ice in the Arctic and little, if any, ice on Antarctica and Greenland.

That explains, in part, why sea levels at that time were 75 to 120 feet higher than today. If sea levels today even approached half that level, we would inundate--inundate--major coastal cities around the world and create hundreds of millions of displaced refugees. And that is what we are talking about.

So let me repeat: The last time carbon dioxide levels were consistently this high was 15 million years ago, at which time the Earth was warmer by 5 to 10 degrees Fahrenheit than it is today.

There is no doubt, if we do nothing to reverse global warming, we are doing more than just threatening harm to the environment. We are jeopardizing the future of our planet and much of humanity. All too often we talk about global warming as if the impact will be somewhere down the line--maybe in 100 years, maybe in 200 years, and isn't it too bad those polar bears are trying to get by on that little block of ice. The reality is that global warming is impacting our planet today, and the impact is devastating.

Mr. President, I see the Senator from Minnesota is here. He has been very active on this issue, and I know he has some important points to be made, so I yield the floor for Senator Franken of Minnesota.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Minnesota.

The point that he makes is indisputable; that is, if we are serious about creating decent-paying, meaningful jobs in this country, why in God's name are we not extending 1603 for solar and wind and the renewable energy tax credit? This will enable us to create good-paying jobs, make sure sustainable energy is an important part of our economy, and allow this country to play a leadership role in reversing greenhouse gas emissions and combating global warming.

I think there are some people who say: Well, maybe global warming might be real, but we don't have to worry about it today. Its impact will not be seen for decades or centuries to come. I would suggest that is not quite correct. We are seeing the impact of global warming climate change right now. Let me give an example.

According to studies, in my own State of Vermont in northern New England, if we fail to reverse global warming we will see continued temperature increases. Vermont's climate, by 2080, is projected to be similar to Georgia's climate today. Mr. President, 2080, in the great scheme of things, is not all that far away. To think that Vermont, northern New England, will have a climate similar to Georgia's today is rather extraordinary if that takes place by the year 2080. Clearly, if that trend takes place, it would be devastating in many respects for Vermont, including our winter tourism and our sugar maple producers, among other aspects of our economy.

Lake Champlain, our beautiful lake which borders New York State and Vermont, which used to freeze for 9 out of every 10 years in the early 20th century, froze over just three times in the 1990s and has not fully frozen over since 2007. So in my small State, the State of Vermont, northern New England, we are seeing the impact of climate change today. The idea that by the year 2080 Vermont's climate will be similar to the State of Georgia's climate today is just unthinkable and extraordinary and tells us the impact that global warming is having.

According to NASA, 2010 tied 2005 for the warmest year since records began in 1880. Nine of the ten warmest years on record have occurred since the year 2000. The last decade was the warmest on record.

We have seen temperature records being recorded all over the planet in the year 2010. During that year, Pakistan set a record for recording the highest temperature ever in Asia, hitting 129 degrees Fahrenheit. Iraq set its own record for high temperatures at over 125 degrees. Sudan reached a record 121 degrees. Los Angeles, right here in our country, had a record 113-degree day. Houston, TX, set a record for its highest monthly average temperature.

In the United States, according to a New York Times article, two record-high temperatures are now set for every one record low. The National Climatic Data Center shows that 26,500 record-high temperatures were recorded in weather stations across the United States in the summer of 2011. Texas set the record for the warmest summer of any State since instrument records began. Oklahoma set a record for its warmest summer, exceeding the record set during the Dust Bowl era in the 1930s.

But we are not just looking at hot temperatures and hot days. What are the impacts of those kinds of weather changes? What does it mean to people's lives? Scientists used to say they could not tie a particular event to climate change. That is no longer true. Our understanding of climate and extreme weather has advanced.

NASA's James Hansen and his colleagues can say that some of the extreme heat waves we have seen, such as those in Russia and Texas and Oklahoma, over the past several years were caused by global warming because their likelihood would be negligible if not for global warming.

Let me give some other examples of what global warming is doing in terms of heat waves and its horrendous impact on the lives of people.

Some of us remember Europe in 2003. During that period in Europe, 2003, a heat wave caused temperatures to reach or exceed 100 degrees Fahrenheit in the United Kingdom and France and led to high temperatures throughout Europe for weeks which killed 70,000 people, according to the World Health Organization. Many older people, people with respiratory problems, people who were fragile in health died during that period. In the heat wave in Europe in 2003, 70,000 people died.

In Russia in 2010, a week-long heat wave sent temperatures soaring above 100 degrees Fahrenheit in areas where the average temperature that time of year is 67 degrees. Mr. President, 56,000 people died during that period as a result of that heat wave, and wildfires created a smoke plume nearly 2,000 miles wide, which was visible from space.

So this is not some kind of abstract issue: Oh, my goodness; isn't it too bad it is really hot today. What we are talking about are prolonged heat waves that kill substantial numbers of people.

In India in 2010, they recorded temperatures of over 100

degrees that killed hundreds of people; Chile in 2011, a heat wave, drought, and wildfire destroyed 57,000 acres of forest and land and forced 500 people to evacuate; Australia in 2012, the start of 2012 was the hottest start of any year for Australia in the century, according to ABC News, with temperatures exceeding 104 degrees and electricity cut off in some areas to prevent the igniting of fires.

Prolonged and more severe drought is likely to increase as global warming continues, according to the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Colorado. This means increased risk of crop failure, wildfires, and water scarcity. A recent study published in Scientific American found that climate change has cut production of cereal crops--wheat, rice, corn, soybeans--causing these crops to be nearly 19 percent more expensive than if global warming was not occurring.

I could go on and on about this issue. But the main point I want to make is the following, and let me summarize it here. According to virtually the entire scientific community in the United States of America and around the world, according to virtually every agency of the United States Government, global warming is real, and it is significantly caused by human activity. People are mistaken if they believe the impact of global warming will just be in decades to come. We are seeing very negative impacts today. The scientific community tells us if we do not begin to reverse greenhouse gas emissions, those problems in America and around the world will only get worse.

If there is a silver lining in all of that, it is that right now we know how to cut greenhouse gas emissions. We know how to move to energy efficiency, mass transportation, and automobiles that get 50, 60, 100 miles per gallon. We know how to weatherize our homes so we can cut significantly the use of fuel. What we also know is that in the middle of this recession, if we move in that direction--energy efficiency and sustainable energy--we can create over a period of years millions of good-paying jobs.

Let me conclude by saying: we now have the opportunity to be in a win-win-win situation. We can save consumers money, we can significantly reduce greenhouse gases and protect our planet, and we can create substantial numbers of jobs that we desperately need in the midst of this terrible recession.

Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source